How things look through an Oregonian's eyes

June 12, 2010

Lars Larson's lies about global warming

Even though I got satellite radio to avoid the right-wing talk shows that dominate the Portland, Oregon airwaves, occasionally I tune into Lars Larson (KXL) or Victoria Taft (KPAM) to check on the strength of my cranium -- since almost always what I hear makes me feel like my brain is going to explode.

I survived ten minutes or so of Larson a few days ago, but just barely. The combined scientific ignorance of Lars and a global warming-denying sidekick he had on, Chuck Wiese, was astounding.

And intensely disturbing.

Three years ago I criticized Larson for joking about how global warming is going to be good for Oregon. He's still up to his head-in-the-sand tricks. Now his brain-dead theory is that the Earth is cooling rapidly, so if big bad government limits our nation's carbon footprint, people are going to freeze to death when their furnace fuel is rationed.

Or something like that.

It was hard to follow the logic of Larson and Wiese, since they didn't use any in their blathering about how climate change/global warming science is a fraud.

Larson doesn't have any scientific qualifications, so far as I know. Wiese calls himself a meteorologist, but he only has a B.A. in Atmospheric Science. He says he's done weather forecasting for twenty-five years.

Well, obviously he never learned that short term changes in the weather are different from long term changes in the climate, because he and Larson kept saying that because Oregon has had an unusually cool spring, this shows that global warming isn't happening.

If idiocy spewed over the public airwaves could be taxed, our national debt would be wiped out by Lars Larson quickly. But, hey, I'm an optimist. People can change.

I wish Larson would read "What's the Worst That Could Happen?" by Greg Craven, an Oregon high school teacher who subtitles his terrific book a rational response to the climate change debate. He calmly and logically leads the reader through an analysis of climate change -- focusing on how to decide what to do, not the scientific facts.

Craven is a believer, as am I, in finding the most reliable sources of scientific information, and trusting them.

I don't have a particle accelerator in my house, nor the ability to conduct experiments in subatomic physics, so I trust the conclusions of experts in this field. Likewise, Craven lists the key organizations who agree with the scientific consensus: global warming is for real, humans are the main cause of it, and it poses a huge threat to human civilization.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, and National Research Council, for example. Along with the 2008 National Intelligence Assessment by all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, among many other reliable sources.

But a right-wing talk show host and a guy with a B.A. in Atmospheric Science disagree, saying that efforts to reduce carbon emissions are some sort of Obama plot to turn the United States into a socialist state.

Larson and Wiese were angry at those who want this country to take serious actions to stop, or at least slow down, global warming. Well, I'm angry too: at them, and anyone else who refuses to face the facts -- which are pointing toward a future for my granddaughter that will be much worse than what we're enjoying now.

It's utterly immoral and unethical to allow future generations to inherit a virtually uninhabitable world from us. As Craven demonstrates, the costs of doing nothing about climate change are vastly higher than the expense of acting to reduce carbon emissions.

Conservatives have a valid point when they criticize the rapidly rising national debt that will be passed on to our children and grandchildren, if nothing is done about it. They should be equally concerned about the environmental debacle that will be passed on if the Earth continues to warm as rapidly as it is.

In a recent issue of TIME magazine, William Antholis and Strobe Talbott wrote "Leaving a Good Legacy: Why the ethical case for combating climate change is one that should appeal to conservatives."

It should be another piece of required reading for Lars Larson. The article ends with:

Our concept of intergenerational equity holds that assets do not
belong exclusively to those who have accrued them; rather, those
resources should, to the extent possible, be administered and preserved
for those who will inherit them and will, partly as a consequence of
their inheritance, live somewhat better lives than those who came
before. We come into this world in debt to our ancestors, and we leave
it an incrementally better place, believing our descendants will come up
with means of fending off or coping with whatever their age throws at
them.

Down through the years, that has been the narrative of the
human family. But global warming alters it in a basic way. We cannot
leave those who come after us to their own devices. If we do not get the
process of mitigating climate change started right now, our
descendants, however skilled, will not be able to cope with the
consequences. If we do nothing, we will likely bequeath to them a less
habitable — perhaps even uninhabitable — planet, the most negative
legacy imaginable. That is why there is no time to lose.

Comments

"because he and Larson kept saying that because Oregon has had an unusually cool spring, this shows that global warming isn't happening."

Ultimately Lars Larson is either lying to sell his political ideology or is simply small minded. He may be able to sell the cool weather theory to his ignorant listeners in the Northwest, but the big picture is that it has been warm in the eastern US and to the north in Alaska.

Consensus? Where is this wealth of information? I have seen only one major group of scientists research this and they have been caught lying(leaked emails). I have read many peer reviewed studies about climate and climate change and the data shows we are in a typical climate cycle. Nobody would have ever known about the global warming if it werent for the news. In fact, nobody would have known about swine flu....wait....what happened with the swine flu? See a trend? News is ruining everyone's perceptions about climate...http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Also, on the IPCC website, I have noticed that they use a few sources from years ago. Like 15-20 years ago, when the science was not quite as sound as it is today.

So, I must ask....why must everyone believe there is this one-sided consensus when there really isnt?
What about these scientists?http://www.oism.org/pproject/
31,000 scientists being ignored? There cannot be a consensus if the opposing side is being ignored. Thats just not science.
What about him?http://www.discovery.org/v/30

My question is, where do peope get their information about global warming/climate change?
Also, I think it's funny how if you do not support another side's agenda, they lash out against you and really hope people are mature enough to not do this...

Alan, you really need to look into the science of global climate change more closely. Peer-reviewed research in this area, as in other scientific fields, is the most reliable source of solid evidence about what is going on with the Earth's climate.

But I did. Im sure I could find dozens of sites that show only one research study that support only one study.
You see, you showed me a study of how its legitimate, but nothing of the science of climate change. You only showed me a website that clearly supports the idea of man causing the climate to change. They don't have an unbiased opinion because they dont even show one. The journals I provided only show the science of climate. And you provided only one source that appears less scientific and more opinion based. The links from the website go back to the same exact website. For that very reason, I question their sources. Where are the sources of the research? The scientific research?

Science is never clear. Its never completely sound. There are always opposing views. We have barely began to study our star, which happens to be more violent and inconsistant that we thought it was.
Even some of Einsteins theories are being questioned when we look how galaxies move throughout the galaxy(dark matter).
I hope you reconsider and read the sources I provided, as I have already read yours. (and thank you for providing those links, I think its always important)
There was once a video that had the IPCC chairman blatenly admit that there is no evidence of man-made CO2 causing the climate to change, but we should act accordingly just in case if it does.
You know what happened to that proof? the youtube video got deleted by the user. It was a sad day for me. Knowing that if other scientists have opposing views, they are lashed out against or sources get deleted.
So, again, I question everyone's motives here.

Remember, the purpose is to educate one another. Thank you for doing so. I look forward to hearing what you have to say.

Um, I do not see why warming is bad. Over all productivity should be higher in the north. Is it preferable that we have the -.1C that we would have less agriculture and oil?
I might really dislike Lars, but I am of the opinion that warming will be beneficial once people accept it. It appears that Lars is just being contrarian because one cannot claim that the warming is false while also claiming that it will be good at the same time since they are fundamentally different claims.

There were forests in Greenland many centuries ago, when population was insignificant, demonstrating that global warming was far more due to something else (the sun's activity?). However, it is clear that there is a theory that man is the cause and then experiments designed to prove, not test the theory. Clearly there is bias in the "global warming" crowd and I think, like the Rosseauists, their aim is to destroy the population (think Pol Pot and Cambodia). I don't trust the "global warming" crowd and AlGor the flaming prince of "burn" while he is the poster child for energy wasting bigotry.

Global warming denial is motivated by the same ideology that brought us ozone hole denial, acid rain denial, asbestos denial, and so on back through history. It comes from the simpleminded folk who only want to believe what make$ them feel good. Evidence to them is strictly ego-based.

Industries make big money from natural resources or man-made chemicals, and anyone who questions that gravy train will get flack until the evidence becomes commonly accepted and they drop their ruse of "skepticism." You either have to wait them out or pass legislation under their noses. With AGW, waiting is no longer an option.

Around the turn of the 19th century, the science known as eugenics was considered almost universally true, even by the great thinkers of our time (e.g. Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison to name a few). Those with dissenting voices were considered quacks and charlatans and were discounted--and even silenced--by the scientific community. Government legislators eager to win votes jumped on the bandwagon. Laws were written to protect people from those who may try to manipulate this science for their own benefit. Many of those remained on the books for decades to follow. Finally after small bits of contradictory evidence surfaced, dissenting voices began gaining traction and the science was slowly, but eventually debunked. That is where I think we are today until irrefutable science surfaces that proves climate changes aren't just natural phenomenon and are something man can influence.

You are a bad writer. You had no information to back you up. All I read was you insulting Lars Larson. You are operating on pure assumption and have no facts. How could you be so old and so stupid.
Best thing you could do to lower the carbon footprint is go kill yourself.

Jeez Louise, Bill Gates! I presume you are NOT THE BILL GATES, although that would be a hoot if you were! I agree that this bomb throwing, anthropological global warming disciple isn't terribly bright given he cites the work of a high school teacher's fiction while simultaneously criticizing some fellow for ONLY holding a B.A. degree in atmospheric science. However, suggesting he offsets his imagined fears by offing himself...well, that's just cold! Funny as hell, but cold! LMAO!

Funny how all the "Global Warming" enthusiasts and fear mongers have now changed it to "Climate Change". Shows the ignorance and pure stupidity of the people who don't have any clue or background in science. NOAA has been shown to have manipulated data to fit their agenda(s) numerous times. Pathetic.

You didn't argue a single point that was made by Larson or Chuck Wiese. I didn't attend college, instead I joined the military, but if this is how colleges are teaching you to right an argumentative essay, you're terrible mistaken. In this case your title is Larson and Wiese lie about global warming.... you should present the 3 most obvious lies they said in which you feel arguable..... then once those statements they said are clear argue how they are lies...... all you did was type a bunch on snark, obviously thought out insults and give other options in which the reader could refer to in order to prove your point..... your blog presented little direction, similar to the Democratic Party.